MURLI DHAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON August 28, 1987, I.S. Tiwana J, after referring to different provisions of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and of the Criminal Procedure Code referred the following question to the larger Bench :-

(2.) THE above question arose on the following premises: Murli Dhar appellant was convicted by Sessions Judge, find under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Act) on May 18, 1987 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of one lac rupees. in default of payment of fine he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. As per the prosecution allegations on November 26, 1985, 7.5 kgs of opium was recovered from the possession of the appellant by Hira Lal Sub Inspector of Police.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellants, reference has been made to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Nand Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1988(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 25. The State of Rajasthan had issued one notification in 1985 authorising certain persons to act under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act. Another notification was issued in 1986 authorising Assistant Sub Inspectors to act under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act. In that context Rajasthan High Court held that before the notification issued in 1986, Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police had no powers to act under sections 41 and 42 of the Act. This decision is not helpful in deciding the question referred to as the provisions of Section 74 of the Act were not for discussion. There were no observations of the Rajasthan High Court with respect to the transitional period i. e. after the enforcement of the Act and issuance of the first notification which was done in 1985. Nand Lal's case referred to above was again noticed by the Rajasthan High Court in Umrav v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 137. Since implication of Section 74 of the Act was not involved in the case, this judgment is not helpful in deciding the question referred.